101104 CC Reg AgP
~,
,'" .
....
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
MONDAY, OCTOBER 11, 2004
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
7:00 P.M.
AGENDA
1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL MEETING
A. Roll Call
Mayor Love _
Garfunkel
Lizee
Zerby _
Turgeon _
B. Review Agenda
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. City Council Work Session Minutes, September 27,2004 (Att. - Minutes)
B. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes, September 27,2004 (Att.- Minutes)
3. CONSENT AGENDA - Motion to approve items on Consent Agenda & Adopt Resolutions
Therein:
NOTE: Give the public an opportunity to request an item be removedfrom the
Consent Agenda. Comments can be taken or questions asked following removal from
Consent Agenda.
A. Approval of the Verified Claims List (Att.- Claims List)
B. Staffing - No action required
C. City Clerk's License Approvals - Tobacco Licenses
D. Setting the Date for the Annual Appreciation Event (Att.- Deputy Clerk's memorandum)
E. Amending Section 105.05 of the Shorewood City Code Relating to Mayor and City
Council Salaries (Att.- Administrator's memorandum, Draft Ordinance)
F. Schedule Canvassing Board Meeting (Att.- Administrator's memorandum)
4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR (No Council action will be taken.)
5. REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS
A. Report from MCES Representative Tad Shaw (Att .- MCES communication)
.
..." .
e"
11
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA - October 11, 2004
PAGE20F2
6. PUBLIC HEARING
7. PARKS - Report by Representative
A. Report on the Park Commission meeting of September 28, 2004 (Att. - Minutes)
8. PLANNING - Report by Representative
9. GENERAL/NEW BUSINESS
10. ENGINEERING/PUBLIC WORKS
A. Discussion of the Shorewood Oaks Drainage Issues (Att. - Public Works Director's
memorandum)
11. STAFF AND COUNCIL REPORTS
A. Administrator & Staff
1. County Road 19 Construction Update
B. Mayor & City Council
12. ADJOURN
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
OCTOBER 11,2004
PUBLIC SIGN-IN SHEET
For the record, please urint your name and address below. Thank you.
Name
Address
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD · SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 · (952) 474-3236
FAX (952) 474-0128. www.cLshorewood.mn.us. cityhall@cLshorewood.mn.us
Executive Summary
Shorewood City Council Regular Meeting
Monday, 11 October 2004
.
A 6:30 PM Executive Session will be held this evening
Agenda Item #3A: Enclosed is the Verified Claims List for Council approval.
Agenda Item #3C: This Resolution approves the annual tobacco license renewals for seven
establishments in Shorewood. All seven establishments have completed the license
application requirements. The license period is November 1, 2004, to October 31, 2005.
Agenda Item #3D: Friday, December 3, 2004, will be set as the date for the annual
Appreciation Event. For the past several years, the first Friday in the month has been the
date set for this event, and it has always had a very good turnout.
.
Agenda Item #3E: Shorewood City Council salaries have not been increased or adjusted since
1993. As discussed during the 2005 budget work session, Staff is recommending a salary
adjustment to $3,000 annually for Councilmembers and $3,600 annually for the Mayor.
Currently, annual salaries are $2,400 for Council members $2,400 and $3,000 for the
Mayor. An amending ordinance to authorize the increase is attached for Council
approval. These salaries have been included in the proposed 2005 budget.
Agenda Item #3F: The Canvassing Board must meet soon after the General Election to
approve the local election results of the Tuesday, November 2 Election. It is
recommended that this meeting take place on Wednesday, November 3, at 6:00 p.m.
Agenda Item #5A: Tad Shaw, Shorewood's representative to the Advisory Board of
Minnetonka Community Education and Services (MCES), has requested an opportunity
to speak to the Council regarding the School Board's consideration of restructuring
MCES and establishing an Advisory Council.
ft
~.1 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
Executive Summary - City Council Meeting of 11 October 2004
Page 2 of 2
Agenda Item # lOA: At the September 27th City Council Work Session, Mr. Pete Willenbring
presented alternatives for the Shorewood Oaks Drainage issue for consideration by the
Council and neighborhood. At that meeting, Staff indicated that a meeting with the
neighbors would follow, and a design would be brought back for consideration.
Staff has met with the neighbors to the drainage swale, and has run up against an impasse
with one of the neighbors. Ms. Molly Siverts is requesting that the City Council consider
other alternatives. Ms. Siverts will be at the City Council meeting to present ideas for
alternatives.
.
.
''j:"
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 2004
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
6:00 PM
MINUTES
D, n." ,t\FT
i'l~' '
1.
CONVENE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
Mayor Love called the meeting to order at 6:00 P.M.
A.
Roll Call
Present:
Mayor Love; Councilmembers Garfunkel, Lizee, Turgeon, and Zerby; Administrator
Dawson; Attorney Keane; Engineer Brown; Finance Director Burton; and Planning
Director Nielsen
Absent:
None
B.
Review Agenda
Without objection from Council, Mayor Love proceeded with the single item on the Agenda for the
evenmg.
2. SHOREWOOD OAKS STORMW ATER ISSUES
Engineer Brown introduced Pete Willenbring, a hydrologist a principal ofWSB & Associates, the City's
consulting fIrm.
Mr. Willenbring stated he had spoken with residents of the Shorewood Oaks subdivision in effort to bring
resolution to the storm water drainage issues in that area of the City. He then explained the process he
had followed regarding gathering public input and information on this issue. ' Mr. Willenbring stated the
general problem was a concern by area residents that the general drainage system that ran through
Shorewood Oaks just west of Freeman Park overflowed during heavy rainfall. This problem was
exacerbated by the overflow of storm water to the area from Freeman Park.
Mr. Willenbring then outlined three alternatives to reduce overflow or reduce infIltration of water to the
area.
One of the alternatives involved Don Aslesen, of Shorewood Oaks, whose overflow seemed to be more
extensive than in the past. Mr. Willenbring stated, while he had not noticed a change in his observations,
he wanted all parties present to understand the drainage pattern currently being utilized was part of the
drainage plan approved for the Shorewood Oaks subdivision at its inception. The fIrst option for remedy
involved placement of gutters on Mr. Aslesen's home with the water being routed to the street to avoid
percolation into his foundation.
The second alternative involved a paved overflow route from Freeman Park between the two homes
where water currently overflowed, and onto Shorewood Oaks Drive. This paved route would be
constructed of approximately 6 to 8 feet of bituminous from the drainage apron area noted near Freeman
Park to the curb line of Shorewood Oaks Drive.
-It rJ.tt
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES
September 27, 2004
Page 2 of3
ll'
The third option included conduction of water through an open swale where the storm water overflowage
would run into an open channel along the western border of Freeman Park and directing the water to an
outflow area north of Shorewood Oaks subdivision. Mr. Willenbring noted this channel could also house
a large storm water pipe at additional expense for materials, labor. His cost estimates assumed did not
include easements and other property control matters.
In response to Council's question, Mr. Willenbring explained the third option included direction of water
to the proposed Freeman Park Wetland Interpretive Area project. Engineer Brown explained with regard
to water quality, he had hoped the water would flow to the Interpretive Area; however, he was concerned
for the timing of the project as it related to application and implementation of grant monies obtained for
the project.
Discussion ensued regarding the options presented and how the proposed third alternative would
potentially impact the homes and park in that area.
Don Aslesen, of Shorewood Oaks Drive, thanked the Council for hearing this issue and working to fInd a
solution to the problem. He stated he was content to assume responsibility for the water that fell on and
around his house; however, he was more inclined to favor the second alternative of laying asphalt
pavement with curbs to try to get the overflow to the street where it could be directed appropriately.
.
Bill Healy, of Shorewood Oaks Drive, reviewed the history of the issue as it related to his property. He
stated he thought it important to reduce infiltration of water to the homesites as well.
Engineer Brown stated he believed Mr. Healy was amenable to having a six foot wide trail along his
property. Engineer Brown stated he wanted to be certain that all parties involved knew that the water
currently drained as it should according to the original drainage plan for the Shorewood Oaks subdivision,
and whatever alternative was chosen, the drainage flowed as it should in that part of the City.
Engineer Brown went on to explain the trail would not decrease the amount of infiltration to the area, but
would merely redirect the flowage to the street where it could be routed to an appropriate spot. He stated
he believed this alternative to be cost effective.
Discussion ensued regarding the specific outflow pattern to be established by the bituminous drainage .
trail. Mr. Willenbring stated he was uncertain that a faster overflow rate would be attained with the trail
approach. The overflow water would not infiltrate the ground in that area, however, and he was hoping to
be able to utilize berm and ridge concepts along with the trail idea to maximize the direction of the
overflow.
Discussion ensued regarding the potential timeline for the project.
Mayor Love stated he liked the dual use of the solution in that it provided an overflow area that would
benefit the residents in that area, and would also provide an additional paved trail entrance to Freeman
Park for the local residents.
Without objection from Council, Engineer Brown stated he would present additional information on this
topic at the next Regular Council meeting
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES
September 27, 2004
Page 3 of 3
3. ADJOURN
Zerby moved, Lizee seconded, Adjourning the Work Session Meeting of September 27, 2004, at
7:03 P.M. Motion passed 5/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Sally Keefe,
Recording Secretary
Attest:
Woody Love, Mayor
. Craig W. Dawson, City Administrator
.
..
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 27,2004
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
1.
CONVENE CITY COUNCIL MEETING
DRAFT
Mayor Love called the meeting to order at 7:11 P.M.
A.
Roll Call
Present:
Mayor Love; Councilmembers Garfunkel, Lizee, Turgeon, and Zerby; Administrator
Dawson; Attorney Keane; Engineer Brown; Finance Director Burton; and Planning
Director Nielsen
Absent:
None
B.
Review Agenda
Turgeon moved, Zerby seconded, Approving the Agenda as presented. Motion passed 5/0.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes, September 13, 2004
Zerby moved, Lizee seconded, Approving the City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of September
13, 2004, as presented. Motion passed 5/0.
3. CONSENT AGENDA
Garfunkel moved, Zerby seconded, Approving the Motions Contained on the Consent
Agenda and Adopting the Resolutions Therein:
A. Approval of the Verified Claims List
B. Staffing - No Action
C. Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 04-082, "A Resolution Establishing an Absentee
Ballot Board for the 2004 General Election."
D. Authorizing Expenditure of Funds for a Park Utility Vehicle
E. Authorizing Expenditure of Funds for a Mower
F. Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 04-083, "A Resolution Accepting Smithtown Road
Pavement Rehabilitation Project and Authorizing Final Payment for City Project
01-12, S.A.P. 216-101-13."
G. Authorizing Release of Escrow for Sylvia Development (Shorewood Ponds
Development)
l1d/3
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
September 27, 2004
Page 2 of 10
..
Motion passed 5/0.
4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
There were no matters from the floor presented.
5. REPORTS AND PRESENT A TIONS
None.
6. PUBLIC HEARING
None.
7. PARKS
Engineer Brown explained there had not been a meeting of the Park Commission since the most recent .
Regular City Council meeting; thus, there was nothing to report.
8. PLANNING
Commissioner Gniffke reported on matters considered and actions taken at the September 21, 2004,
Planning Commission Meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting).
A. Sign Permit Request
Applicant: Fitness 19
Location: 23730 IDghway 7 (Shorewood Village Center)
Director Nielsen stated at its last meeting, the City Council approved a sign permit for Fitness 19 at the
Shorewood Village Shopping Center. Howard Humbyrd had now applied for a temporary sign permit to
display a banner while his permanent sign was being made.
Director Nielsen went on to explain that under the City Code, each property was allowed two temporary .
sign permits per year for seven days at a time. Permits could run back-to-back for a total of 14 days. The
sign could not exceed 32 square feet in area and the permit must be approved by the City Council.
In this case, Director Nielsen stated, the applicant had already displayed a temporary banner for
approximately three weeks, without any permit, having been advised in advance that signs required
Council approval. The banner remained in place even after staff threatened removal. The authority for
this action was a result of the signed development agreement for the Center, due to this specific type of
violation in the past.
The manager of the Center had complained that new businesses should be allowed to display temporary
signs until their permanent ones have been made (in this case the estimated time would be approximately
4-6 weeks). Staff advised the applicant there was a process for amending not only the current conditional
use permit for the Center, but also the Code itself. To date no such application had been made.
Given the violation of City Code, and the fact that a temporary sign has been displayed in excess of what
was allowed, even with a permit, Director Nielsen recommended denial of this permit request.
John Owen, consultant representing Fitness 19, stated he was present this evening to ask for a temporary
signage for a banner to display the words "NOW OPEN" for the weeks of October 11 through October
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
September 27,2004
Page 3 of 10
24, 2004. He stated the banner would be within the required square footage allotment and would be
placed there within the time limits allowed.
In response to Councilmember Garfunkel's question, Mr. Owen explained there had been a banner
displayed inside the building previously and once a violation was noted, it was removed. He went on to
explain the landlord had granted permission for the banner inside the mall area as part of the lease
agreement. He apologized for the misunderstanding about the issue of signage, and noted the previous
banner had stated "FITNESS 19 JOIN NOW." This banner had been removed, and the store had been in
compliance for three weeks. He restated his request to allow the temporary banner to be placed once the
store actually took up occupancy of the site, as he believed it a visibility issue for potential clients.
In response to Councilmember Lizee's question, Mr. Owen stated he was asking for the banner in
addition to the permitted signage approved by Council at past meetings.
.
Director Nielsen explained he had spoken with Mr. Humbyrd earlier in the planning process, and he had
personally informed Mr. Humbyrd the signage was not allowed without permit. The banner was hung
anyway for three weeks with photo dated evidence of this action.
Mr. Owen stated he was not disputing the actions of the past, but was asking for the banner to be placed
in the weeks of October 11 through October 24, 2004, to announce the opening of the store and allow
visibility.
Turgeon moved, Lizee seconded, Denying a Request for a Sign Permit for Fitness 19, 23730
Highway 7 (Shorewood Village Center). Motion passed 5/0.
B. Variances to Setback and Expansion of a Nonconforming Structure (Att. - Planning
Director's memorandum, Draft Resolution)
Applicant: Todd Meixner
Location: 25625 Birch Bluff Road
.
Director Nielsen explained the history of the case noting the applicant was in the process of renovating
the home at 25625 Birch Bluff Road. Plans included converting a very small, attached garage to living
space and building a new garage on the north side of the house. Director Nielsen also explained the house
was entirely outside of the buildable area of the lot. Although the garage itself complied with setbacks, a
12-foot wide portion of the addition that connected the garage to the house necessitated a variance of 5.5
feet. An eight-foot deck/entry connecting the house and garage also required a variance.
With only 13,271 square feet of area, the property was considered substandard for the R-IC zoning
district in which it was located. The proposed garage and the living area above it measured 22' x 30' and
contained 660 square feet on each level. If approved, the remodeling plan would result in the house
having a total of 2980 square feet.
Upon analysis of the case, Director Nielsen explained Shorewood's Zoning Code allowed the expansion
of nonconforming single-family homes, provided the addition itself complied with zoning requirements.
In this case, he explained, the garage addition complied with the setback requirements for the R-l CIS
district, but the connection'to the house (66 square feet) and approximately three-fourths of the deck (90
square feet) were outside the buildable area of the lot. Director Nielsen also stated it was worth noting
that the configuration of the lot and the resulting limited buildable area were the result of past roadway
encroachments from both Eureka Road and Birch Bluff Road. Based upon Staff research, the house
actually existed before the right-of-way for Eureka was platted. The r.o.w. was platted through the house
and then subsequently a portion of the r.o.w. was vacated back to the property. On the north side of the
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
September 27, 2004
Page 4 oflO
lot, public use of Birch Bluff Road cut off the northeast comer of the lot until, several years ago, the
owner of the property granted the City an easement for the encroachment.
As planned, impervious surfaces on the site would amount to 24.8 percent of the lot area, which was
considered to be consistent with R-IC/S requirements. Director Nielsen also stated the ratio of the floor
area of all structures on this lot would be approximately 27 percent, well within the Zoning Code
maximum of 30 percent for substandard properties.
Director Nielsen recommended approval with two stipulations. The renovation and conversion of the
existing garage must be done so as not exceed 50 percent of its value. That is, the frame portion of the
garage simply must be able to be repaired and not reconstructed. The City's Building Official advised
that the foundation under the garage must be replaced. Secondly, the floor plan for the proposed garage
must include a direct connection between the house and the living area above the garage. Without such a
connection, the garage would exceed the 1200 square feet allowable floor area for accessory space.
Councilmember Lizee stated she liked the improvements to the property, and had heard neighborhood
satisfaction related to the project. .
Lizee moved, Zerby seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 04-084, "A Resolution Granting a
Setback Variance to Todd Meixner." Motion passed 5/0.
c. Variances to Setback and Expansion of a Nonconforming Structure
Applicants: R.J. and Melanie Rogney
Location: 5950 Grant Street
Director Nielsen explained the history of the case noting the applicants proposed adding a second story
over the rear half of the home at 5950 Grant Street. The addition would be built over a single-story
portion of the home for which a variance was granted in 1983. The property in question was zoned R-ID,
Single-family Residential and contained 10,560 square feet of area. Besides the home, the lot was
occupied by a detached garage and an above-ground swimming pool, neither of which complied with R-
ID setback requirements. The garage appeared to have pre-dated current zoning requirements, while
there was no record of a permit having been issued for the swimming pool, making it an unlawful .
nonconformity. In addition to nonconforming setbacks, existing hardcover on the lot was at 52 percent,
where 33 percent was the maximum allowed.
The existing house contained approximately 1425 square feet of floor area on two levels, not including
the basement. The proposed addition would add 464 square feet for a total of 1889 square feet for two
additional bedrooms. Since the house was only 11.8 feet from the rear lot line, the applicants' plans
necessitated a setback variance of 23.2 feet.
Director Nielsen then reviewed the history of the previous variance, noting the 1983 variance was granted
under slightly different conditions than the current request. He also noted the City imposed a condition
on the variance approval that made up for the discrepancy on the rear by imposing additional front yard
setback. Under the R-ID zoning regulations, this would result in a 53-foot front yard setback.
With regard to the analysis of the criteria for a variance, Director Nielsen also explained it was
questionable how the application complied with the criteria. Specifically, there was nothing unique about
the lot. The rezoning in 1986 resulted in the lot conforming to current zoning requirements. There was
ample room on the lot to construct a house and garage. The variance in 1983 was granted to allow
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
September 27, 2004
Page 5 of 10
reasonable use of the property. The addition at that time provided for reasonable use of the property by
allowing for a bedroom, bathroom and dining room to be located on the main level of the house.
The applicant stated that extending the building outward into the buildable area of the lot would increase
the already nonconforming impervious surface to lot area ratio. In this regard, Director Nielsen also
noted there was a considerable amount of impervious surface to be eliminated on the site, including the
swimming pool and patio built without a permit and within the required setback. He also stated, whether
or not the variance was granted, the pool and patio were in violation of City Code requirements and
should be eliminated. Director Nielsen noted Ronald and Melanie Rogney, applicants, were present this
evening and wished to address the Council.
.
Mrs. Rogney explained the pool had been dismantled as requested by the City over the past weekend.
Mr. Rogney then explained the pool had been installed by a contractor that the Rogneys had assumed had
applied for the appropriate permits from the City as had been directed by the Rogney's at the time of
installation. It was only upon discussing this variance request with City Staff that they had been made
aware that the permits had never been applied for in this matter. Mr. Rogney apologized and noted the
pool had been in its location for seven years, without indication of non-compliance with City regulations.
Mrs. Rogney explained the aggregate patio was still remaining on the lot, and she requested the Council
consider allowing a portion of this patio to remain on the site, as it provided a place for entertainment.
She also stated, if allowed to remain, she would like to provide additional landscaping around the patio
area.
In response to Mrs. Rogney's request for clarification on the setback issues, Director Nielsen explained
that the past variance allowed for shifting the setback areas on the site in order to allow the requested
construction to move forward. He also stated the removal of the pool and patio would bring the site into
compliance for the current variance request.
Mr. Rogney stated the addition being requested would not be built beyond the current footprint of the
house, and the house would resemble a 2-story house versus the current story-and-one-half.
.
COWlcilmember Turgeon stated she was not seeing a hardship in this case for the current request.
Director Nielsen stated this was a somewhat confusing case since the applicants could not add on to the
house without asking for a variance. While the "hard line" answer refused this addition, Director Nielsen
explained the rules had changed since the house had been constructed and added onto in 1983. He also
noted that if the owner had requested this variance in 1983, the variance request would have been granted,
and the applicants were not allowed any additional use of their property than anyone would be allowed.
Councilmember Turgeon stated she had to give the applicant credit for removing the pool and patio to
comply with the City's regulations in this case.
Zerby moved, Turgeon seconded, Directing Staff to Prepare Findings of Fact Approving a Variance
to Setback and Expansion of a Nonconforming Structure, subject to Staff and Planning
Commission Recommendations, for R.J. and Melanie Rogney, 5950 Grant Street. Motion passed
5/0.
D. C.U.P. for Accessory Space Over 1200 Sq. Ft.
Applicants: Tom Kelsey and Ingrid Schaff
Location: 5705 Smithtown Way
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
September 27, 2004
Page 6oflO
Director Nielsen explained the applicant had applied for a conditional use permit to construct accessory
space in excess of 1200 square feet on the property located at 5705 Smithtown Way. Ms. Schaff and Mr.
Kelsey proposed building a new detached garage to the north and east of the house. Since the area of the
new garage, combined with an existing small tuck-under garage, exceeded 1200 square feet, a C.U.P. was
required. Director Nielsen went on to explain the property was zoned R-1C, Single-Family Residential
and contained 41,755 square feet in area. The new garage contained 1,024 square feet. This accessory
structure, combined with the existing garage, totaled 1,539 square feet. As demonstrated on the plans, the
proposed garage would be 50 feet from the front lot line and approximately 28 feet from the westerly side
lot line. He also noted the existing home contained 2,295 square feet of floor area in one and one half
stories.
Director Nielsen also explained the request met all necessary criteria for granting a Conditional Use
Permit, and it was worth noting the garage was tucked into a side slope off the existing driveway. Also,
considering the landscaping that existed on the property, no additional landscaping was required.
Council had no questions regarding this case.
Turgeon moved, Lizee seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 04-085. "A Resolution Granting a
Conditional Use Permit for Additional Accessory Space to Ingrid Schaff and Tom Kelsey, 5705
Smithtown Way." Motion passed 5/0.
.
E. Minor Subdivision/Combination
Applicant: David Blume
Location: 5240 / 5250 Vine Hill Road
Director Nielsen explained the history of the case, noting the applicants, David Blume and Kelly Dixon,
owned the properties at 5240 and 5250 Vine Hill Road, respectively. Due to historic landscaping
patterns, they had requested a lot line rearrangement (minor subdivision and combination) to coincide
with how they had used their properties. They proposed shifting the common lot line between their
properties by four feet.
Director Nielsen went on to explain this request was quite simple. Both lots would still comply with the .
requirements of the R-1C zoning district, and building setbacks would also still conform to zoning
requirements. As such, approval of the division and combination was recommended. The applicants
should record the conveyance within 30 days of their receipt of the resolution approving the request.
In response to Councilmember Garfunkel's question, Director Nielsen explained he had not been made
aware of the need by the applicants' for the 'jog" in the proposed lot line rearrangement.
A brief discussion ensued regarding clarification related to the Planning Commission's recommendation
for this case.
Turgeon moved, Lizee seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 04-086, "A Resolution Approving a
Subdivision and Combination of Real Property, subject to the condition of extending the new lot
line straight back to the rear property line, for David Blume and Kelly Dixon."
Motion passed 5/0.
F.
Minor Subdivision
Applicants:
Location:
Andrew and Dorothy Meldahl
6180 Cathcart Drive
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
September 27, 2004
Page 7 oft 0
Director Nielsen stated in 1991 the applicants split their property at 6180 Cathcart Drive into three lots.
They subsequently sold the westerly lot and had since recombined the easterly two lots. They now
wished to redivide the lots exactly as they were in 1991. He went on to state, with one exception, there
are no issues to speak of relative to this request. The one item for consideration was the issue of park
dedication fees that were required when new lots were created. Although these charges were paid in
1991, the rates were less ($750) than they were at this point in time ($1500). Consequently, Staff
recommended the difference be made up at this time. Subject to the applicant paying $750, and recording
the division within 30 days of receipt of the Council Resolution approving the division, approval of the
minor division was recommended.
Council had no questions regarding this case.
Garfunkel moved, Turgeon seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 04-087, "A Resolution
Approving a Subdivision of Real Property for Andrew and Dorothy Meldahl." Motion passed 5/0.
.
9.
GENERALINEW BUSINESS
A. Resolution regarding Legislation Affecting Six Mile Creek, LMCD
Administrator Dawson explained that at the September 13, 2004, Regular City Council meeting, the
Council had reviewed issues regarding Six Mile Creek with Tom Skramstad, Chair of the Lake
Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) and Shorewood's representative to the LMCD. The primary
matter was legislation adopted at the end of the 2004 session which superseded the LMCD's authority to
regulate boat access on Six Mile Creek. He went on to explain the LMCD had suggested a model
resolution to its 14 member cities regarding its opposition to the action taken by the Legislature. At the
September 13th meeting, the Council indicated it would like to consider a resolution stating its
disagreement with the Legislative process on this matter, and stating its encouragement for the LMCD to
work with owners of four properties regarding riparian rights to Lake Minnetonka.
Councilmember Zerby stated he believed the proposed resolution shared by City Staff this evening had
captured the viewpoints he heard at the last meeting of the Council.
. Zerby moved, Lizee seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 04-088, "A Resolution Relating to the
Jurisdiction of the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District and Minnesota Laws 2004, Chapter
255, Section 243, Regarding Six Mile Creek."
Mayor Love stated this issue would be a topic of discussion at an upcoming "Mayors' Meeting" where
the member cities heard from the legislators on this topic. He stated he believed this issue needed to be
discussed publicly in the future.
Councilmember Lizee stated she thought the issue was a bit tardy in being discussed at the Mayors'
Meeting, as she thought the legislature had blatantly abused the process in this matter.
In response to Councilmember Garfunkel's question, Attorney Keane stated this resolution if approved
could be addressed to key committee members of the legislature, specifically the members of the Local
Government Affairs Committee, the Metro Politan Affairs Committee, and the Environment and Natural
Resource Committees.
Motion passed 5/0.
B. Amending Selection of Park and Planning Commission Chairs
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
September 27, 2004
Page 8 of 10
Administrator Dawson explained the Council, at its most recent Regular meeting, had adopted an
ordinance amending the terms of Commissioners. While these terms would remain three-year terms, they
would run from March 1 to the last day of February. Also, Council had directed Staff to prepare an
ordinance to remove the appointment of commission officers by Council and require that the respective
commissions select them.
Zerby moved, Lizee seconded, Adopting ORDINANCE NO. 407, "An Ordinance Amending
Chapters 201 and 202 of the Shorewood City Code Relating to the Planning Commission and Park
Commission." Motion passed 5/0.
C. Excelsior Branch Library Discussion
Administrator Dawson summarized a discussion he had with Councilmember Lizee regarding the
Excelsior Branch Library. He explained that Hennepin County currently leased space from the City of
Excelsior for the library located in downtown Excelsior. This library was built in the mid-I960 and at
that time the South Lake Minnetonka cities contributed funds toward its construction. The current library
had approximately 3,500 square feet of space and required approximately two to three times that amount .
of space for the future. Hennepin County indicated it would not build a new facility, but would seek to
lease space for a larger library.
To that end, in the latter part of 2003, Hennepin County Library convened a committee of interested
parties and residents in the Excelsior area. This committee was called the Library Roles and Services
Committee and conducted a preliminary analysis of what services were available, services needed but
unable to be provided, and long term planning issues for the County Library. This committee
underscored the importance that the Excelsior Branch would serve the larger South Lake Minnetonka
community as a whole. Two additional committees were formed. The Library Committee, whose job
was to follow-up on the work of the Roles and Services Committee, and was comprised of city
representatives, as well as the Public Facilities Work Group, formed by the City of Excelsior. The
purpose of the Public Facilities Work Group could be broad, but focused on building needs regarding the
Library and Excelsior City Hall.
While both groups have been meeting, members of the Library Committee had indicated frustration and
disappointment with the current process utilized, since recent discussions had limited the defmed users to .
include the Library and City Hall, with other spaces available to "future tenants" and there would be a
parking "area." The Library Committee believed there should be a larger community consensus of how
and where the new Library facility should be located. Several Library Committee members had believed,
however, that the Facilities Group had been trying to convince them of its preferred alternative to retrofit
the building, and to co-opt their consideration of alternative locations. The Library Committee questioned
whether such meetings should continue.
Administrator Dawson explained that on September 16th, the cities of Deephaven and Greenwood sent
letters to the City of Excelsior, informing the latter that they would no longer participate in the work of
the Library Committee. Both cities noted there would be little likelihood that they would be participating
financially in a new library facility.
Councilmember Lizee stated there would be a Joint meeting of the two groups on October 5, 2004, and a
meeting of the Library Committee on October 12, 2004. She stated she would like to report back to
Council after the October 12,2004, meeting of the Library Committee.
In response to Councilmember Turgeon's question, Councilmember Lizee explained the role of the
Library Committee was to build community consensus at this point in time.
.
.
.
.
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
September 27, 2004
Page 9 oft 0
Mayor Love stated he heard Councilmember Lizee state there were holes in the process with reasonable
debate being presented; however, in this issue he stated he was not certain this matter had been presented
to the public in the right way. If the library was to be a regional asset, then a discussion of a new facility
needed to be a regional discussion.
Councilmember Turgeon stated she was concerned for tying the project to a new City Hall, parking ramp,
etc., as she saw the library construction as being a separate issue. She also stated she thought the process
needed to be clearly defined, as she was concerned there were two different agendas for the two different
groups.
Councilmember Lizee stated she thought the issue needed further discussion by each Committee as the
library was a community asset.
10. ENGINEERING/PUBLIC WORKS
Engineer Brown stated there was nothing further to report at this time.
11. STAFF AND COUNCIL REPORTS
A. Administrator & Staff
1. County Road 19 Construction Update
Engineer Brown reported the temporary signal was strung at an improper height for tall vehicles within
the intersection. Hennepin County representatives were notified several days ago and City Staff would
continue to work with County representatives in the future to have this matter fixed.
Councilmember Zerby stated the signals worked well in timing and he was personally pleased with how
the intersection functioned. He also stated he realized the intersection was better currently than in the
past, but he was concerned there were no long term solutions.
B.
Mayor & City Council
Mayor Love reported on the EFD Governing Board Meeting of September 18, 2004. He stated the Board
heard concerns from Captain Brandy Parker representative of many of the firefighters within the
Excelsior Fire District.
Councilmember Turgeon stated she had been present at that meeting as well, and found the firefighters to
be united in their concerns. The largest concern heard by the Board dealt with communication and
subsequent roles of firefighters, Board, Fire District Officers,. and how each group needed to work with
each other. She stated the issues heard could be worked through mutual respect.
In response to Councilmember Turgeon's question, Engineer Brown reported he was waiting for a report
from WSBand Associates, the City's consulting firm, regarding possible outcomes for Radisson Road.
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
September 27, 2004
Page 10 oftO
12. ADJOURN
Lizee moved, Garfunkel seconded, Adjourning the Regular City Council Meeting of September 27,
2004, at 8:22 P.M. Motion passed 5/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Sally Keefe,
Recording Secretary
Woody Love, Mayor
Craig W. Dawson, City Administrator
..
..
.
.
PAYABLES APPROVALS
For 10/11/04 Council Meeting
Approved by: Date: lO.07.1J4
Crai awson, City Administrator
Date:/o-7-{} tj
.
Reviewed by:
Bonnie Burton, Fi
Date: 18~~i
e Director
.
#31r
PAYROLL APPROV ALS
For 10/11/04 Council Meeting
Prepared by: () ~ . Clk
Catheri e Elke, Sr.
Date: /()- 7-{)'/
.
Reviewed by: Date: 1tJ/6;i;f
Bonnie Burton, Finance Director
son, City Aaministrator
Date: 11J.(J7.04
.
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD..
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD. SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927. (952) 474-3236
FAX (952) 474-0128. www.cLshorewood.mn.us. cityhall@cLshorewood.mn.us
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
October 6, 2004
.
TO:
Mayor and City Council Members
Jean Panchyshyn, Executive Secretary/Deputy Clerk :fi;(
FROM:
CC:
RE:
This Resolution issues the annual license for the sale of tobacco products to seven establishments
in Shorewood. The current licenses expire on October 31, 2004. All applicants have submitted
appropriate documentation for license renewals. None of the applicants have had a violation
relating to the sale of tobacco products within the last 12 months. The renewal license period is
November 1, 2004 to October 31, 2005.
.
COUNCIL ACTION
Approval of a Resolution issuing licenses to establishments to sell tobacco products.
#3C
#9t
'-J PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
RESOLUTION NO. 04-
A RESOLUTION APPROVING LICENSES TO RETAILERS
TO SELL TOBACCO PRODUCTS
WHEREAS, the Shorewood City Code, Sections 302 and 1301 provide for the licensing of the
sale of tobacco products in the City; and
WHEREAS, said Code provides that an applicant shall complete an application, and shall pay a
licensing fee; and
WHEREAS, the following applicants have satisfactorily completed an application and paid the
appropriate fee.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood as
~: .
That a License for the sale of tobacco products be issued for a term of one year, from November 1,
2004 to October 31,2005, consistent with the requirements and provisions of Chapter 302 of the
Shorewood City Code, to the following applicants:
Applicant
Address
American Legion Post 259
Cub Foods Shorewood
Holiday Stationstore # 12
Oasis Market
Shorewood Liquor Store # 1.
Shorewood Liquor Store #2
Tonka Bayt
24450 Smithtown Road
23800 State HighWay 7
19955 State Highway 7
24365 Smithtown Road
· 19905 State Highway 7
23670 State Highway 7.
5680 County Road 19
ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood this 11th day of October, 2004.
.
Woody Love, Mayor
ATTEST:
Craig W. Dawson, City Administrator/Clerk
.
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD. SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927. (952) 474-3236
FAX (952) 474-0128' www.cLshorewood.mn.us' cityhall@cLshorewOod.mn.us
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
October 5, 2004
.
TO:
Mayor and City Council Members
Jean Panchyshyn, Executive Secretary/Deputy Clerk ~
FROM:
CC:
Craig W. Dawson, City Administrator
\t>
RE:
Annual Appreciation Event
It is time to begin making plans for the annual appreciation event. Friday, December 3rd is
available and has been reserved at the Minnetonka County Club. For the past few years, the first
Friday in the month has been the date set for this event, and it has always had a very good
turnout.
.
Council Action
A motion setting the date of Friday, December 3,2004, for the annual appreciation event.
~,3b
n
,",.1 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
.
i
.
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD. SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927. (952) 474-3236
FAX (952) 474-0128. www.cLshorewood.mn.us. cityhall@cLshorewood.mn.us
MEMORANDUM
Date:
October 6, 2004
Re:
Honorable Mayor and City Council Members -
Bonnie Burton, Finance Directorffreasurer ~
Craig Dawson, City Administrator. c!>
Proposed City Council Salary Adjustment for 2005
.
To:
, From:
The 2005 Preliminary General Fund Budget contemplates a pay adjustment in 2005 for the
Mayor and City Council. According to the '2004 Elected Officials Salary Survey' provided by
the AMM, the average elected officials' salaries for cities with less than 10,000 population is
about $3,000 annually for Councilmembers and $3,600 annually for the Mayor. Currently,
Shorewood Councilmembers are paid $2,400 per year and the Mayor receives $3,000. The
Shorewood elected officials have not had a pay adjustment for the last 12 years, or since January
. 1, 1993.
In order to enact a pay increase, the City Council will need to adopt an ordinance that sets the
new salary level prior to the November 2,2004 general election. Accordingly, a draft ordinance
amendment is attached for Council review and consideration.
Staff Recommendation
It is recommended that the City Council review and approve the attached ordinance amendment
adjusting City Council salaries.
o PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
dJ---3 E.
.
~
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 105
OF THE SHOREWOOD CITY CODE
RELATING TO SALARIES FOR THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Section 105.05 of the Shorewood City Code shall be amended to read as follows:
105.05: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL: Commencing January 1, ~ 2005, the monthly
salary of the Mayor of the City shall be tv/O aUFl(ked fifty dollars ($250.00) three hundred .
dollars ($300)", and the monthly salary of each member of the City Council shall be two
hundred fifty dollars ($200.00 250).
Section 2. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect following its passage and publication.
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 11 th day of
October, 2004.
Woody Love, Mayor
.
Attest:
Craig W. Dawson, City Administrator/Clerk
.
.
..
.
.
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 105
OF THE SHOREWOOD CITY CODE
RELATING TO SALARIES FOR THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Section 105.05 ofthe Shorewood City Code shall be amended to read as follows:
105.05: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL: Commencing January 1, 2005, the monthly salary
of the Mayor of the City shall be three hundred dollars ($300)", and the monthly salary of each
member of the City Council shall be two hundred fifty dollars ($250).
Section 2. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect following its passage and publication.
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 11 th day of
October, 2004.
Woody Love, Mayor
Attest:
Craig W. Dawson, City Administrator/Clerk
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD · SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 · (952)474-3236
FAX (952) 474-0128. www.cLshorewood.mn.us. cityhall@cLshorewood.mn.us
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
October 5, 2004
RE:
Mayor and Council Members
Craig W. Dawson, City Administrator C!f:;)
A Motion setting the date for the Canvassing Board meeting
.
TO:
FROM:
The Canvassing Board must meet soon after the General Election to approve the local election
results of the Tuesday, November 2 Election. It is recommended that this meeting take place on
Wednesday, November 3 at 6:00 p.m.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUIRED:
.
A motion setting the date for the Canvassing Board meeting for Wednesday, November 3 at 6:00
p.m.
#-,3f
n
".1 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
.
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD. SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927. (952) 474-3236
FAX (952) 474-0128. www.cLshorewood.mn.us. cityhall@cLshorewood.mn.us
MEMORANDUM
.
DATE:
City Council
Craig W. Dawson, City Administrator ClJ
October 7,2004
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Appearance by Tad Shaw
Tad Shaw, the City's long-time representative to Minnetonka Community Education and Services
(MCES), has requested an opportunity to speak with the City Council regarding the restructuring of
Community Education. He relates that the Community Education Advisory Board has not been part
of the planning process that resulted in the proposed restructuring of Community Education, and in
the creation of a new Advisory Council.
.
A copy of recent correspondence from the Minnetonka School District Superintendent is attached. It
is the first communication that I have received from the District regarding progress on the
recommendations of the management study completed early this year. The Superintendent and
mayors/city managers of the ten cities in the District's jurisdiction meet bi-monthly to discuss items
of mutual interest. The next meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, October 12, and we expect that this
date will be the start of the District's discussion with the cities on this matter.
#5A
n
".1 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
SERVING THE
COMMUNITIES OF:
M1NNETONKA
CHANHASSEN
DEEPHAVEN
EDEN PRAIRIE
EXCELSIOR
GREENWOOD
SHOREWOOD
TONKA BAY
VICTORIA
WOODLAND
RECEIVED
Dennis L. Peterson, Ph.D.
Superintendent of Schools
Minnetonka Public Schools
5621 County Road 101
Minnetonka, MN 55345
~ C'l ...,,,n '.1
c:; F D\. 'Z ,) LUij~,
v ~.-
C'TY OF SHOREWOOD
(952) 401-5004
(952) 401-5083 fax
dennis.peterson@minnetonka.kI2.mn.us
September 20, 2004
Craig Dawson, City Administrator
City of Shorewood
5755 Country Club Road
Shorewood,~ 55331
Dear Mr. Dawson,
The School District and the City of Shorewood have enjoyed a long relationship in
delivering services to our community through the Minnetonka Community Education
and Services (MCES) program. As the community grew and changed over the years,
this relationship evolved. Some of the municipalities did more of their own
programming and others continued to contract with MCES.
.
In March 2001, the changes in overall services and the financial structure had reached a
point where it became prudent to stop charging the cities for any per capita involvement
and to terminate the agreements between the District and cities. All of the municipalities
were informed of that termination by Dan Kuzlik. The District stopped billing per-
capita amounts. Since that time, however, we have continued to have representatives
from the cities on the Advisory Council.
During the past year, there has been considerable discussion about MCES, and the
School Board had an outside study of the management. They have also been eager to
have needed improvements made to the program, advisory structure and management in
order to get the program to a higher level of contribution to our overall community.
.
Accordingly, we are now considering the enclosed policy in order to build the
foundation for a stronger and more responsive program. The Advisory Council would
be broadened and the focus would be more defined in terms of where the District is
today and where it wants to go. As we strive to build one of America's great school
districts, we want the Community Education program to be part of that transformation.
We want to retain a critical role for our relationship with the ten municipalities by
having a representative from the City of Shorewood on the council. In fact, we would
like for those representatives to be individuals clearly linked to city government. If you
or another official from the City of Shorewood could serve, it would be great. This
council will not be meeting so often that it would be a burden to any member.
MINNETONKA PUBLIC SCHOOLS
Policy #901: COMMUNITY EDUCATION
I. PURPOSE
The purpose of this policy is to establish the framework' for providing community education
programs and services to members of the community within the Vision and Mission of the
School District.
II. VISION
Ownership of the Minnetonka School District resides with each and every citizen who lives
within the ten communities we serve. In recognition of this mutual investment, we commit
ourselves to developing and expanding a robust array of community education services and
programs which will reflect and respond to the needs and desires of all ages, abilities, and
incomes.
.
All residents of the Minnetonka School District have a right to benefit from the physical,
human, and financial resources of the school district they support. A responsive and inter-
generational community education program will be the common and unifying element which
will allow us to effectively pursue and attain world-class, child-centered excellence. As much
as our efforts in early childhood and family education are focused on maximizing each
student's potential for success, our community education services and programs will be
focused on serving the needs of all citizens for lifelong learning. Uniting all elements of the
community is a cornerstone of our Community Education program. Frequent needs-
assessments and responsive program development, as well as an organizational structure that
reflects all stakeholders in the community, will enable us to build a Community Education
program that is rich in content, readily accessed, widely used, and ever-evolving as the needs
of both the community and School District change over time.
.
III. GENERAL STATEMENT OF POLICY
The School Board affirms a strong commitment to the Community Education program and
seeks to provide educational opportunities to young children and their parents, as well as
recreational and educational programs for older children, youth and adults in the District by
using the human and financial resources available. The School Board welcomes, and
strongly encourages, use of school buildings and activity areas by the community when not
used for regularly scheduled early education, elementary and secondary programs. The
Administration should strive to accomplish the following objectives:
A. It shall be clear in all respects that Minnetonka Community Education & Services
(MCES) is an integral element of the District and functions with the same
responsibilities and opportunities as all other elements.
1
"
B. Maximum use should be made of public school facilities within the District's service
area.
C. Educational needs and interests of area residents should be determined periodically in
order to drive program and service decisions.
D. Community resources and expertise of residents should be utilized to develop a vibrant,
well-rounded Community Education program.
E. Area residents, and non-residents as space may be available, should be encouraged to
actively participate in program opportunities.
F. Collaboration with personnel whose primary responsibilities are in the K-12 program and
integration of services with those elements shall occur.
. G. Build strong community/School District relationships.
H. Assist in developing interagency coordination and cooperation.
1. Involve members of the community in evaluating and creating program and service
opportunities.
IV. COMMUNITY EDUCATION ADVISORY COUNCIL
A. An Advisory Council shall be approved by the School Board with the responsibilities and
duties prescribed by the Board. The Advisory Council shall operate within the
parameters described in policy and the further directions of the Board and
Superintendent, or designee.
.
B. The membership on the Community Education Advisory Council is made up of the
following representations:
a One from each of the ten communities in the District: Chanhassen, Deephaven, Eden
Prairie, Excelsior, Greenwood, Minnetonka, Shorewood, Tonka Bay, Victoria,
Woodland,
b. Two students,
c. Four at-large members appointed by the Board,
d. One representative from Tonka Pride,
e. One representative from the Minnetonka Foundation,
f. One representative from the Minnetonka Boosters Club,
g. One representative from the Minnetonka Arts Council,
h. One representative from the Minnetonka Boys Basketball Association (MBBA),
1. Two School Board members,
J. Two Minnetonka principals,
k. Two representatives from local churches, or ministerial associations,
1. One ECFE Advisory Council member,
m. Two representatives from athletic boosters organizations,
n. Two representatives from community service clubs,
2
II
o. Two representatives from community senior organizations,
p. Two representatives from other youth sports organizations,
q. One LCTS Collaborative committee member,
r. One member from the Committee for Academic Excellence,
s. Two PTO/PT A representatives,
t. The Director of Teaching and Learning,
u. The Executive Director of MCES shall be an ex-officio member.
C. All members shall serve at the pleasure of the School Board, and all members must
receive initial approval of the Board. Members' terms shall be three years, with a
maximum of two terms; and members shall be subject to the sending organization within
those requirements (i.e., the sending organization may reduce the term of its respective
representative at any time).
D. The Council shall have the primary goal of advising the Director on the programs and
services of the MCES Department and shall conduct needs-assessments as necessary to .
develop information.
E. The Council shall assist in promoting the goals and objectives of the program and shall
serve as ambassadors of the District within the general community.
F. The Council shall endeavor to connect various organizations throughout our ten
communities as well as organizations represented by the Council's membership to best
serve the entire community.
G. Bylaws of the Community Education and Services Advisory Council shall provide the
operating framework for the Council including officers' positions, officers' duties, roles
and responsibilities of members, frequency and structure of meetings and such other
matters as deemed necessary and appropriate to the functioning of the Council. They
shall not dictate membership nor any other matter reserved to the School Board and .
Administration. The Bylaws may be created and proposed by the Council, but they shall
become effective only upon adoption by the School Board. The School Board may revise
the Bylaws at any time upon their own volition.
H. The Advisory Council shall not meet without the attendance of the Executive Director, or
designee.
1. The Council will adopt a policy to reduce and eliminate program duplication in the
District. This expectation shall be subject to direction from the Superintendent or School
Board.
v. ADMINISTRATION OF MCES
The School Board delegates necessary' and appropriate authority to the Superintendent to
provide general oversight to the MCES operation (management and advisory functions).
There shall be an Executive Director employed to provide direct supervision and
management to the various programs and services of the Department. The Executive
Director shall convene the Advisory Council at least four times annually for receipt of their
3
,.
,
.
.
advice. The Executive Director shall report directly to and be supervised by the
Superintendent.
The MCES Department and Advisory Council shall operate under all applicable policies and
procedures of the District.
The Advisory Council has no direct budgeting or accounting authority, b.ut it shall advise the
Executive Director regarding the programs and services as requested.
The Advisory Council has no authority regarding salary schedules, staff positions, staff
assignments or levy recommendations, except as requested.
The Advisory Council shall be non-commercial, non-sectarian and non-political. The
Council shall not endorse commercial enterprises or political candidates.
Legal References: ~inn. Stat. 9 124D.19, Subd. 1 (Community Education Programs;
AdvisoryCoupcil)
. Minn. Stat. 9 123B.51 (Schoolhouses and Sites; Access for noncurricular
Purposes)
Minn. Stat. 9 124D.20, Subd. 1 (Community Education Revenue)
Cross References: Policy 902 (Use of School District Facilities and Equipment)
.,;~~~~~~.""'~:.~
\, " . .... 'I' ~.,
4
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
PARK COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 28,2004
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
CITY HALL
7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
DRAFT
1. CONVENE PARK COMMISSION MEETING
Chair Davis called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m.
A. Roll Call
Present: Chair Davis; Commissioners Meyer, Young, Famiok, Westerlund, and Wagner; City
Engineer Brown; and City Council liaison Zerby
Absent: Commissioner Gilbertson was absent
B. Review Agenda
. Item #9, Signs, was moved to the goals and priorities section of the agenda item #7.
Farniok moved, Meyer seconded, Approving the agenda as amended. Motion passed
6/0.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. Park Commission Meeting Minutes of August 10, 2004
Westerlund asked for a review of the motion under item #7 and that revisions be made to clarify
the motion more clearly.
Westerlund moved, Meyer seconded, to approve the Minutes of the August 10, 2004 Park
Commission Meeting subject to review of the taped motion under item #7 and revisions so
noted. Motion passed 6/0.
.
B.
Park Commission Special Meeting Minutes of August 31, 2004
Young moved, Meyer seconded, to approve the Minutes of the August 30, 2004 Park
Commission Meeting as presented. Motion passed 6/0.
3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
Meyer asked if the Commission would be getting an update regarding the Freeman Plaza.
Brown indicated that they would give an update under the Capital Improvement Program.
4. REPORTS
A. Report on City Council Meeting of September 13 and 27th
Brown reported that on September 13th the City Council amended the Park Foundation by-laws to
reflect that they are an autonomous entity from the City, removing the directive that directors of the
Foundation be appointed by the City Council. Accordingly, the requirement was also removed from
the City Ordinance as well.
,.*1A
PARK COMMISSION MINUTES
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 28,2004
PAGE20F8
On other matters, the City Council approved the sign permit for the South Tonka Little League, the
Donor Policy, and the Freeman Park Plaza Plan per the Park Commissions recommendations. In
addition, Brown stated that the amendment that revised the term for the Park Commission to three
years beginning March 1st running through the last day in February was approved.
Brown reported that the September 27th meeting contained an amendment to the Ordinance that the
Chair and Vice-Chair for both the Planning and Park Commission be chosen by the Commission
itself. While this has been the practice, the Ordinance was revised to reflect this policy.
In addition, work sessions have been held in which residents discussed concerns regarding overflow
drainage near Freeman Park through the Shorewood Oaks neighborhood. Since this time, Council has
directed staff and representatives ofWSB to take a look at the area to determine the most practical
method of addressing the drainage concerns and overflow of that area. Recommendations were made
by WSB which included an option to pave the walkway area and create a drainage swale, which
would also formalize the entrance to the park. A second option, would be for the City to consider
covering the cost of installing a pipe from the property boundary of Freeman Park all the way to
Shorewood Oaks to the north. The pipe eventually would spill out into the proposed Freeman
Wetland area proj ect.
.
With neighborhood feedback, the City Council recommended staff proceed with the outflow swale
through the side yards ofthe homes via the City outlot at a cost of roughly $15,000 and that the City
continue to monitor the situation. If it is determined that this solution does not function well, then
installation of a pipe would be considered through the Shorewood Oaks neighborhood at a cost of
nearly $60,000-70,000+. Brown stated that the downside to the pipe installation would be that the
neighbors in Shorewood Oaks would be responsible for gaining easements through the very back
yards of some residents in the Shorewood Oaks development.
Wagner asked what the collection point would be.
Funded out of the stormwater fund, Brown stated that the 6' bituminous path would run as far as the
fIre hydrant and ultimately end up in the gutter of Shorewood Oaks Drive. He noted that the future
improvements to the Freeman Park Pond will improve the water quality immensely.
.
5. UPDATE FROM CARVER COUNTY PARKS ON DOG PARK
Lenny Schmitz, of the Carver County Parks system, updated the City on its progress in partnering
with several communities to further the off leash dog park in Lake Minnewashta Regional Park.
Schmitz informed the Commission that the City of Chanhassen Park Commission has passed a
recommendation to their Council to allocate $20,000 in their 2005 CIP for the development of the off
leash dog park and the City of Victoria has passed a recommendation to their Council to commit
$5,000 to the project. He noted that the City of Excelsior did not express much interest in
participating in the project at this time, nor did the City of Chaska. He indicated that Carver county
Parks has begun the process of directing Brauer and Associates, a landscape architects specialty
company, to look at a couple of alternative site plans.
Davis asked how the Park system plans to contact dog owners to gauge their interest.
PARK COMMISSION MINUTES
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 2004
PAGE 3 OF8
Schmitz indicated that they have been contacted by a minimum of several hundred dog owners who
support the dog park and will spread word of the project. While most emails have been favorable,
there is always controversy when it comes to designating an area for off leash dog parks.
Westerlund asked whether dogs on leashes would be allowed within the rest of the park.
Schmitz stated that the off leash dog park would consist of approximately 15 acres; however, leashed
dogs would be allowed within other areas of the park. While the estimation for the initial investment
for the dog park is $40,000, the park would take over costs for running the park.
Davis indicated that she wished to be kept abreast of the progress the County makes. She inquired
how the park would raise funds and charge for the parks use.
.
Schmitz encouraged the Shorewood Park Commission to consider pledging an amount or making a
recommendation to its Council supporting a partnership with the Carver County Park System. He
explained that Carver County Park would bill the partner cities once the plans have been determined
based on the amount of money available from its partners. While enforcement gets to be an issue,
Schmitz stated that the dog park would have a separate entrance and honor boxes.
Farniok asked if the Park was going to go forward with the level of support it has been given to date.
Schmitz reiterated that they plan to proceed with the initial steps of working with Brauer and
Associates on some initial site plans for the dog park. He promised to keep the Commissioners
informed of upcoming meeting dates.
.
Ann Nye, 1641 West 63rd Street - Excelsior, owner of the Wayzata Book Store, presented the
Commission with a petition containing over 150 names of residents from the lakes area who support
the construction of a dog park. She stated that there are a large number of people within the lakes
area that are excited about the potential of a dog park in the Minnewashta Regional Park. She
encouraged the City of Shorewood to participate in the partnership, especially since little room
remains within Freeman Park for this addition.
Meyer asked for ideas of how to raise money for the construction of the dog park.
While she did not have immediate ideas, Nye stated that she would be willing to assist in the
fundraising efforts for the dog park. She believed that most people would be willing to purchase an
additional permit to use the dog park, which would also raise funds for dog parks construction.
Tom Akins, 603 Glencoe Rd - Excelsior resident, stated that he would love to see the dog park
delineated in the park; however, pointed out that the terrain of the current area used for dogs is not
really suitable for another use than a dog park area. He explained that the park is used most by dog
owners, in contrast to any other use at the park, and did not want to see limits set on the area used by
pet owners.
Davis asked what Mr. Akins was proposing.
Akins stated that he did not see why the park needs to identify a dog park area at all, 'ifit ain't broke,
don't fIx it' was his philosophy. Due to the rough terrain, he maintained that it is the dog owners and
PARK COMMISSION MINUTES
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 2S, 2004
PAGE40FS
not recreational users who are using the park now; therefore, additional expenditures to put up
fencing or parking are unnecessary.
From a community point of view, Meyer indicated that it would the City's intention that other users
be given the opportunity to use the park. She believed that the overall 'community' demand warrants
the need to open up the park to more users.
Westerlund asked how much space would be added to the park for the dog park.
Schmitz stated that the Park would hope to add another mile of trails within the approximately 15
acres designated for the dog park. He pointed out that people who are uncomfortable around dogs,
such as families with small children, tend to avoid the 80 acres of back trails where dogs are free to
roam. Schmitz stated that the proposed 15 acres, the dog park would be the third largest dog park in
the metro area. r
As a dog owner, Davis stated that her concern would be that someday dogs might be banned from the
park; therefore, owners should do all that they can to retain as much real estate of the park for dogs
today as possible.
.
Patty Feeney, 5630 Christmas Lake Point - Shorewood resident, stated that she visited the park this
morning with her grandson in a stroller and her dog. She stated that this park is a very special park
and different than any other park in the system and it would be her desire to walk the entire park area
and not just be limited to 15 acres. As a responsible pet owner, her proposal would be to require pet
owners to pay a bit more to use the entire park for their use, and let them decide when to put their
pets on a leash.
Young commented that this attitude sounds very idealistic, when the papers all the time site many
irresponsible dog owners who don't leash their pets when others are around and this leads to
problems.
.
Julie Eisraney, frequent visitor of Lake Minnewashta Regional Park who trains hunting dogs, stated
that she has never had an incident at the park in the past 25 years, but was given a ticket this summer
for not having her dog leashed at the park. When she asked the judge where she could go with her pet
to let him run, the judge suggested she try to change the law. Since June, Eisraney indicated that this
is what she has been attempting to do.
Westerlund questioned how changing the law to a leash or off leash law was relevant to the City of
Shorewood voting to support the dog park.
Eisraney stated that she would leave a copy of her proposed changes for review and suggested that
the park consider instigating a permit for use of the park.
Young asked if the leash law was a safety issue.
Schmitz stated that dogs are not allowed to roam unrestricted without leashes; therefore, this supports
the need for the dog park.
PARK COMMISSION MINUTES
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 2004
PAGESOF8
6. CONCESSION STAND REPORTS AND OPERATIONS FOR 2005
Brown reviewed the sales information provided by Scott Qualle, Freeman Park concessionaire,
noting that the report was incomplete due to Qualle's computer crashing.
Young asked why many dates were excluded from the report and how the initial figures compared to
the sales of the previous year.
Brown stated that the date exceptions were due to rainouts. In contrast to last year, Brown indicated
that the concessions had sold approximately $11,000 worth of goods last year.
Westerlund suggested that staff compile more information to compare the two years and report back
at a future meeting.
.
Brown indicated that he had asked Qualle whether he might have any initial interest in running the
concessions the next year, to which he replied he would.
7. DISCUSS GOALS, PRIORITIES AND WORK PROGRAM
Brown reviewed the 2004 Shorewood Park Commission Goals and the 8 additional items that the
Commission wished to see added to the list. Brown asked for feedback from the Commission
regarding the priority these items should be addressed in.
Westerlund stated that she would support immediate consideration of a park signage discussion,
followed by examination of a larger issue like water quality.
.
Davis noted that many of the goals and issues could be separated into several categories; first, some
fall under the big items such as drainage, horticulture, and trees in our parks; others consist of
immediate issues like buckthorn control, signage, and vandalism that would provide more 'instant
gratification' if resolved; and finally, further educational efforts or programs in our parks should be
investigated. She felt the Commission should try to pick one big item to try to accomplish over the
next year, as well as, addressing the smaller instant gratification items.
Since it is extremely visible, Wagner believed that park signage should be the first issue addressed by
the Commission, followed by the vandalism issue, and finally the larger issues such as water quality
and managing wetland and water in our parks.
Meyer felt the water quality issue might involve a presentation from an educated source.
Farniok stated that several of the items are short term 'clean up' items, such as reviewing the
concession operation numbers and signage; whereas, other items meet the long term items to work
on. She pointed out that the educational piece should come first, before the Commission tries to
tackle some of the big items.
Brown indicated that he had a general direction of how to proceed, including signage, vandalism,
concession numbers, and a water quality presentation.
PARK COMMISSION MINUTES
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 2004
PAGE 6 OF 8
8. DETERMINE INVOLVEMENT WITH MN REC AND THE COMMISSION
DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
Davis stated that she would love to invite a wetland expert or DNR representative to a Commission
meeting to discuss water quality and some of the other items on the goals list. She asked Brown and
the Commission whether they felt they were getting their money's worth via membership of the Mn
Recreation and Parks Association.
As mentioned in his memo, Brown stated that the initial first annual Commission Development
Program was somewhat successful; however, more time might have been useful for the Cities to
share ideas.
Although members for just one year, Young stated that the association still appears to be a rich
resource for the Commission and went virtually untapped by the Commission last year. He believed
that it might be worthwhile to renew the membership for a second year as they might have access to
some of the liaisons or expertise we'd like to pursue in some of the issues we are dealing with. He .
suggested the Commission revisit the membership next year if they have not proven their value to
draw our support.
Meyer concurred, stating that it was likely the Commission's own fault that it failed to use them as a
resource, since they have been very responsive to our needs.
Davis suggested staff invite representatives of the Association to make a presentation to the
Commission as to their ability to assist the City with its list of goals and issues over the next year.
9. DISCUSS SIGNS FOR THE PARK
This item was incorporated into the goals item #7 and would be addressed at a later date.
10.
REVIEW OF THE 2004 AND 2005 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP)
A. Review Schedule of Improvements
.
Brown reviewed the CIP for the 2003 Park Fund from Park Dedication Fees which equaled roughly
$86,902, with an additional $27,900 in park dedication fees in 2004, for a balance of$114,800. He
pointed out that an additional $33,000 was anticipated from the Barrington development. While
fewer and fewer lot splits will continue to occur, Brown encouraged the Commission to spend its
budget wisely. On the up side, Brown pointed out that when the levy limits were backed off recently,
the Council, spearheaded by Council member Zerby, reacted to this by reinstating the $10,000 for
general park improvements back into the budget each year.
Wagner questioned what sort of balance in its contingency account the City expected to keep in their
Park improvements account.
Brown stated that $20,000 had been earmarked for the skate park equipment, thus leaving an account
balance in excess of $80,000. In recognition of the Public Works Department, Brown pointed out that
the trail around the north end of Freeman Park was over 2/3 complete as of today, and was coming in
under budget.
"
PARK COMMISSION MINUTES
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 2004
PAGE 7 OF8
Meyer asked whether the City Council would be helping to offset expenditures for the Minnewashta
dog park if the Park Commission made a recommendation for this investment or whether the Park
fund would be used to offset that expenditure.
Brown stated that, as a staff member, he would assume that this expenditure would likely come out
of the CIP plan for the Park Commission.
Zerby indicated that it would be a much easier sell to the City Council if the Commission was
straightforward with the Council. and said the Commission found additional money in the Park
budget and would like to use a portion of it for the dog park. While he felt the dog park was a good
idea, he commented that he had not seen a ground swell of support to warrant the Council paying for
it.
.
Wagner asked what action the Park Commission was expected to take this evening with regard to the
dog park. He indicated that he thought it set a bad precedent to support City's contributing to County
parks and asked if this was common practice to contribute to County Parks.
Brown stated that the Commission was under no obligation to make any commitment to the dog park
this evening, and based on the comments from the public, he believed more consideration must be
given to the subject.
Meyer pointed out that consideration of a dog park was one of the Commission's identified priorities
for several years.
With the Carmichael development, Brown noted that water service would be brought along Highway
7 and staff would be demanding that service be provided for the skate park as well.
.
B.
Accept Proposal for Southshore Community Park
Brown shared the recommendations by Tim Hughes and the quotes supplied by Ramptech and True
Rides for upgrading the skate park equipment. He explained that it would be his recommendation that
the surface be repaired; the existing equipment would remain, with the addition of a 4' high ramp and
quarter pipe, as well as, resheeting the existing equipment.
Davis agreed that the upgrades were necessary and the addition of the first two items acceptable;
however, she was hesitant to invest a great deal more without knowing whether the trend was
waning.
Meyer pointed out that the investment for the first two items would be approximately $5,300, with
additional shipping and handling.
Westerlund moved, Wagner seconded, to approve the top two items of the Ramptech bid which
include the 4' Quarter pipe and 4' Bank Ramp, with the addition of shipping and handling
charges as staff deems reasonable. Motion passed 6/0.
"
PARK COMMISSION MINUTES
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 2004
PAGES OF8
11. NEW BUSINESS
Davis suggested that staff obtain pictures of the current signs for discussion of the signage issue
for upcoming meetings.
Meyer concurred, urging Commissioners to visit various parks to view the signs prior to the
discussion.
As a review of the Park Plaza design, Davis reported that the landscape architect had rearranged
the tree placement slightly and access walk.
Brown reported that, while the City Council approved the plans moving forward for the plaza,
the Foundation was reminded that no construction will take place until the funds were in an
escrow account with the city or letter of credit filed.
Westerlund voiced concern regarding the potential for cut through traffic from the comer of
Eddy Station to the comer of the plaza without additional plantings. She also suggested that the
use of native plants be encouraged.
.
Having visited the site, Famiok felt the cut-through traffic would not be as big a concern as one
might first think.
Brown stated that he would bring the Commission's suggestions back to the landscape architect
for insertion into the plans.
Davis requested that the November meeting be moved to an alternate date, since neither she nor
Gilbertson would be available to attend. After discussion, the Commission agreed to hold the
meeting on November 3, 2004.
Council Meetings:
October II :Davis
October 25: Westerlund
12.
ADJOURNMENT
.
Meyer moved, Westerlund seconded, adjourning the Park Commission Meeting of
September 28, 2004. Motion passed 6/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Kristi B. Anderson
Recording Secretary
..
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD · SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 · (952) 474-3236
FAX (952) 474-0128. www.cLshorewood.mn.us.cityhall@cLshorewood.mn.us
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Mayor and City Council
Craig Dawson, City Administrator
.
FROM:
Larry Brown, Director of Public Works
DATE:
October 6, 2004
RE:
Discussion of the Shorewood Oaks Drainage Issue
At the September 27th Council work session, Pete Willenbring, hydrologist for WSB and Associates,
presented two concepts and associated construction costs for improvements to assist the Shorewood
Oaks neighborhood with drainage originating from Freeman Park and the Shorewood Oaks area.
Attachment 1 is the report presented by Mr. Willenbring. The two alternatives presented in this report
include:
.
Alternative 1: Construct an asphalt overflow swale within City owned property that currently
exists as a turf trail entrance to the park. Costs are estimated at $15,000 - $20,000.
Alternative 2: Construct a storm sewer pipe along the easterly edge of the Shorewood Oaks
Subdivision. Costs are estimated at $70,000 - $80,000.
Based upon the discussion and feedback received from those in attendance at that meeting, Alternative
1 was the preferred alternative.
It should be noted that there are two properties directly adjacent the subject trail area. Mr. John Healy,
property owner of 26040 Shorewood Oaks Drive and Ms. Molly Siverts, property owner of 26030
Shorewood Oaks Drive. Attachment 2 is a site location map. Mr. Healy was in attendance at the
Council work session~ Ms. Siverts was not.
Staff informed the City Council that a design. would be brought back to the City Council. This has
been included as Attachment 3 . You may notice that the proposed alignment for the overflow swale
lies outside of the City's property. This placement was suggested due to the presence of a large
cottonwood tree in the middle of the outlot area. However, based on most recent discussions with
n
\,.1 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
#IDA
.
.
Mayor and City Council
Shorewood Oaks Drainage Issue
October 6, 2004
Page 2 of2
Mr. Healy and Ms. Siverts, it has been suggested and agreed to that the tree can be removed, and the
overflow swale be redesigned to fall within the City's property.
While agreement has been reached with the adjacent property owners over the alignment of the swale,
the type of material to be utilized for construction was not agreeable to Ms. Siverts. Ms. Siverts
objects strongly to the use of an asphalt trail. Attachment 4 is an e-mail that was received from Ms.
Siverts regarding this issue. Staff explained the necessity to utilize an impervious surface to transport
the water out of the problem areas.
Ms. Siverts remains firm that other materials are to be used, due to aesthetics. Ms. Siverts has
arranged for a representative from Gray Gardens to be present at Monday's City Council meeting to
suggest other materials that may be utilized.
While alternative materials may be considered by the City Council, it remains important to weigh the
costs of constructing the overflow swale using alternative materials, versus construction of a storm
sewer pipe adjacent Freeman Park. Recall that the estimated cost of the storm water pipe was $70,000
_ $80,000. While more expensive, the anticipated results of the stormwater piping would be more
effective.
WSB has prepared a design and is in the process of obtaining quotes for it. Based upon the many
conversations and correspondence that has occurred in the last week, it is unlikely a decision will be
reached at this meeting.
Staff will present this item at the Council Meeting for your discussion and consideration. At that time,
the next best step will be to determine how to proceed.
.
WSB
& Associates. Inc.
.
. ',.
. ., " .
4150 6lsor\
Memorial.Highway
? Suite. 300 >
f Minneapolis
763.541-4800
763.541.1700 FAX
Memorandum
To:
Larry Brown
City of Sltorewood
From:
Pete Willenbring, P.E.
WSB & Associates, Inc.
Date:
September 27,2004
Re:
Additionallltformation on Drainage Problem
Witltin Tlte Sltorewood Oaks Subdivision
Adjacent to Freeman Park
City of Sltorewood
WSB Project No. 1608-00
As requested, we have completed additional analyses related to recommendations outlined in
an August 2, 2004, memorandum to the City of Shorewood regarding the Shorewood
Oaks/Freeman Park drainage problem. The analyses provided a more detailed preliminary
design for the improvement options identified and an estimate of cost for those improvements.
As outlined in the August 2, 2004, memorandum, the improvement options included the
following:
1.
Work with Mr. Don Aslesen to place fill around his house, regrade his lot, and
develop a conveyance system to make certain that any precipitation that is directed
to the home's roof or yard is rapidly directed to the street.
2. Consider construction of a paved overflow section between the homes from
Shorewood Oaks Drive to Freeman Park. This paved overflow section would serve
to provide an impermeable surface through which water overflowing Freeman Park
could be directed, provide a lower profile overflow route, and provide a more
efficient conveyance section to Shorewood Oaks Drive.
3.
Consider constructing a berm on the west edge of the park property to reduce the
rate of overflow from the park and construct a swale/drain tile/pipe on the west side
of the baseball field to redirect storm water runoff to the north. This would, under
most conditions, prevent water from being directed west through the Shorewood
Oaks Subdivision.
Attachment # 1
Minneapolis. St. Cloud . Equal Opportunity Emplo~b).W
Larry Brown
City of Shorewood
September 27,2004
Page 2
Supplemental Information for each of the improvement options is provided below:
Aslesen Lot Reflradim!
In regard to the project associated with providing fill around Mr. Aslesen's house to make
certain that any precipitation directed to the home's roof or yard would be directed to the street
and not be allowed to soak into the ground adjacent to his property; a site survey of the lot
needs to be undertaken prior to developing a formal plan for this improvement. Once the site
survey is completed, a more formal grading plan could be prepared, and the most cost-effective
means for directing water from the lot to this street could be defined. It is anticipated the cost
to fill around Mr. Aslesen's house, regrade his lot, and develop positive drainage systems to
carry the water to the street could range from $1,000 to $7,500.
.
Freeman Park Overflow
In regard to the construction of a paved overflow section from Freeman Park to Shorewood
Oaks Drive, we would anticipate the bituminous overflow section to be six to eight-feet wide,
but have a widened bituminous spillway into the overflow section on the park property that
would be expanded out to 12 to 15 feet. The construction cost for the project is estimated at
$15,000 to $20,000 (see attached).
Construct New DrainaJle Svstem to the North
.
The option of constructing an open channel or a storm sewer along the west side ofthe park
north to a point of which it would outfall into a drainage way that carries water north and west
from Freeman Park was also investigated further. The analysis developed an estimate of cost
for these options as well. The cost to construct the open channel improvement is estimated at
$35,000 to $40,000 and a cost for constructing and 18-inch, high-density polyethylene pipe is
estimated at $70,000 to $80,000 (see attached).
If you have any questions regarding this information, please do not hesitate to contact me at
763-287-7188.
Attachment
F:\ WPWIN\1608-OO\092704-memo-lb.doc
.
.
Project: Alternative No.1 - Bituminous Spillway to the west
Location: City of Shorewood
WSB Project Number: 01608-00 9/2712004
Schedule A- Bituminous Spillway Improvement
Item Material Description Unit Estimated Estimated Estimated
No. No. Quantity Unit Price Total Cost
1 2021.501 Mobilization Lump Sum 1 $2,000.00 $200.00
2 2104.509 Clear & Grub-(lnc.Tree relocation) Acre 0.2 $5,000.00 $1,000.00
3 2104.501 Remove Curb and Gutter Un Ft 20 $8.00 $160.00
4 2104.513 Sawing Bituminous Pavement Un Ft 30 $5.00 $150.00
5 2105.501 Common Excavation CuYd 90 $8.00 $720.00
6 2211.501 Aggregate Base, CI V Ton 85 $20.00 $1,700.00
7 2331.514 Type 2331 Base Course Mixture Ton 36 $75.00 $2,700.00
8 2531.501 Concrete Curb & Gutter Un Ft 20 $20.00 $400.00
9 2511.501 Random Riprap, CIIV CuYd 5.9 $75.00 $442.50
10 2511.515 Geotextile Filter, Type IV SQYd 85.5 $7.50 $641.25
11 2575.555 Turf Establishment Lump Sum 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
12 2573.502 Silt Fence Un Ft 100 $5.00 $500.00
Subtotal $10,610.00
25% Contingency $2,652.50
Total Estimated Construction Cost $13,262.50
28% Indirect Cost $3,714.00
Total Estimated Construction Cost $17,000.00
Assumptions:
1. No easement acquisition costs were included in this estimate.
W:\01608-00\excel\cost estimate.xls\ALT-1 BIT SPILLWAY
1
.
.
Project: Alternative No. 2A-open Channel to north on west side of Park
Location: City of Shorewood
WSB Project Number: 01608-00 9/27/2004
Schedule A- ODen ChannellmDrovements
Item Material Description Unit Estimated Estimated Estimated
No. No. Quantity Unit Price Total Cost
1 2021.501 Mobilization Lump Sum 1 $2,000.00 $500.00
2 2104.501 Remove/Reolace Trail Lumo Sum 1 $1,200.00 $1,200.00
3 2104.509 Clear & Grub Acre 0.3 $5,000.00 $1,500.00
4 2105.501 Common Excavation CuYd 1500 $8.00 $12,000.00
5 2501.511 18" Pioe Culvert-PE Un Ft 30 $28.00 $840.00
6 2501.501 18" Pipe Aoron-GS Each 2 $450.00 $900.00
7 2511.501 Random Riprap, CL III CuYd 5.9 $75.00 $442.50
8 2511.515 Geotextile Filter, Tvpe IV SaYd 85.5 $7.50 $641.25
9 2575.555 Turf Establishment Lump Sum 1 $3,500.00 $3,500.00
10 2573.501 Bale Check Each 30 $9.00 $270.00
11 2573.502 Silt Fence Un Ft 150 $5.00 $750.00
Subtotal $22,540.00
25% Contingency $5,635.00
Total Estimated Construction Cost $28,175.00
28% Indirect Cost $7,889.00
Total Estimated Construction Cost $36,100.00
Assumptions:
1. No easement acquisition costs were included in this estimate.
2. It is assumed that the channel alignment will not require any fence removal and reinstallation.
W:\01608-oo\excel\cost estimate.xls\AL T-2A OPEN CHAN-N
1
.
.
Project: Alternative No. 2B-Storm Sewer to north on west side of Park
Location: City of Shorewood
WSB Project Number: 01608-00 9/27/2004
Schedule A- Storm Sewer Improvements
Item Material Description Unit Estimated Estimated Estimated
No. No. Quantity Unit Price Total Cost
1 2021.501 Mobilization Lump Sum 1 $5,000.00 $1,000.00
2 2104.501 Remove/Replace Trail Lump Sum 1 $1,200.00 $1,200.00
3 2104.509 Clear & Grub Acre 0.3 $5,000.00 $1,500.00
4 2501.501 18" Pipe Apron-GS Each 1 $450.00 $450.00
5 2503.511 18" Pipe Sewer-PE Un Ft 1120 $28.00 $31,360.00
6 2506.501 Construct Drainage Structure, Design 48-4020 Un Ft 22 $250.00 $5,500.00
7 2506.602 Casting Assembly (Manhole) Each 4 $350.00 $1,400.00
8 2511.501 Random Riprap, CIIV CuYd 5.9 $75.00 $442.50
9 2511.515 Geotextile Filter, Type IV SqYd 85.5 $7.50 $641.25
10 2575.555 Turf Establishment Lump Sum 1 $3,500.00 $3,500.00
11 2573.501 Bale Check Each 30 $9.00 $270.00
12 2573.502 Silt Fence Un Ft 150 $5.00 $750.00
Subtotal $48,010.00
25% Contingency $12,002.50
Total Estimated Construction Cost $60,012.50
28% Indirect Cost $16,804.00
Total Estimated Construction Cost $76,800.00
Assumptions:
1. No easement acquisition costs were included in this estimate.
2. The cost estimate for the pipe alignment assumes no fence removal and reinstallation.
W:\01608-00\excel\cost estimate.x1s\AL T-2B PIPE EST
1
A
WSB
" A.--'./o<:.
FREEMAN PARK DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
(
~
\
\ ( \ \"0 v.
\ '\ \ \
\ ')'\
\ 1\\
" '.\
\ \\ /
\\ \ \. j
\\ \\ i
\\, \\ \
\ \ \ \ \
, . \ \ \
, '\
'----..
\ \ (~/
"" \ \ \
i ., ......--.v-"\--.~, . .....
\.._____'" 1 \ ~\
~. \ T\
1..//' \ ~ \
, /f /' \ \"
...! '''-, \\ '\
.~ \~
\\
"
\
"--
"\.\
"--...,
\ /"
',-,,//
I
,
,
\
'"
"""
.........
./
".1" /'
/
/
/
'"
-' .-
,
r
~~-"-'~~ ..AJ~~
~~~~~ ",rv-~~~
REMOVE-REPLACE TRAIL
INSTALL 18" CULVERT
/~
ALTERNATIVE 2A
OPEN CHANNEL@
4' BOTTOM
/3:1 SIDESLOPE
-'...................-,....
'--
"'"
-1:
~ 0.36%
"
'\
,
'\ ~
\
V
(
I
>
.:-"...\ i
:. \
. ...
q \i
80 40 0 80 160
I " . I
SCALE IN FEET
4150 Olson Memorial Highway
SUIte 300
MInnaapOIIs. MN 55422
IHERES'f cann THAT THIS PLAN. SPECFICA1'ION. OR REPOR1'
WAS PREPARED BY ME oft lI'I)EA "Y DIRECT SlftfMSlOH
AND THAT IMI A Otl.Y UCEHStD PftOfESSDW. fHGltE€R
UNDER tHE l.AWS OF TKE SUTE OF ~SOTA
REVISION NO.
DATE
UPLNtATIOH
SCAL[t AS NOTED
FREEMAN PARK DRAINAGE
IMPROVEMENT ALTERNATIVES
SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA
Pl.Afrl B'f'1 OCSCON 8n
TAW TAW
CH[CltED In p'IWJJ[CT NOI
PRW
763-641-<1800
FAX 763-641-1700
PETER R. WIllENBRING. P.E.
lie. Hlh 15998
I RECORD cOPy IT I
DATE
9/24/04 I
I DATEI
_~_l
1I.ma~~IIHuec:r_rulClW'c:a::eRF~=-.diHmI::t
__.,._..____.._._~____.______~~".. _..__.~___~_______..___.m______~.___._...._.___
o ;..;
('f)Q
@ r.f.l
~~
~ r.f.l0
0] "5 '"d
..... 0 > 0
U :> ..... 0
..... ? r:/) ~
o~ >"0
+:: 0 __ l-o
~ ..s::: ..-....----. '0 0
Or:/) ~~
.
.
.
.
I
i
.
I
\
I
I
.
.
i
.
.
.
.
I
I
.
.
I
.
.
.
.
.
I
~;'i
~ r.f.l
\O~
~O
>..'"d
~ 0
o 0
::r: ~
Q l-o
..s::: 0
o..c
~r:/)
.
-::r:
~
,0
z
".~
.
........-.....-------....-........r--.-.-.....-
\'0 /)r'~,
\ / I "',
Q / I '.
I '......
. '''-- ) ,
Q /.---_. .\
,.r' ~
0" . /'-.!....~._-....
/'2. / I
~/.",.. / I
'''-'l/~ / / \
I """"',
l ~./
i . ";;t"\ /
I /".~ .
~/ /
\ / I J
i { ;
/ I
\ {__........._...._....._.L...._-... --,-
1:.:.:.:.:::.:.:.:.::.:.:.::::.....-.-..-.....
~Ij\\
.\
.;=\...
/
SldV~
i /
I I
l--
I
I
I
I
1
I
!
~
-I
..._..~-_...._..._.-
<(
I
\......-.....-..-....--...................
..--........--......................t
o L._._
D -........-
.___M._M......-...-
--.---
-~&-
0:::
F-....
-..
.
\
i ./
! ,/
..._~,/
'J........-..
...
I
I- --
I .---
L
,.. !
"'~ ~
r.--..--
!
i
;
"
-,
-,
'\
,
I I
ATTACHMENT 2
II
......
.
.
Page 1 of 1
Main Identity
From:
To:
"City of Shorewood" <cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us>
"Craig Dawson (Craig Dawson)" <cdawson@cLshorewood.mn.us>; "Larry Brown"
<engineer@cLshorewood.mn.us>; "'Christine Lizee'" <cgordonlizee@mchsLcom>; "'John Garfunkel'"
<jgarfunkel@mchsLcom>; "'John2 Garfunkel'" <john.garfunkel@supervalu.com>; "'Laura Turgeon'"
<Irturgeon@visi.com>; "'Scott@Valusoft.Com'" <scott@valusoft.com>; "'Woody Love'"
<woodylove@mchsi.com>; "'Woody2 Love'" <wlove@cbburnet.com>
Tuesday, October 05, 2004 8:05 AM
FW: Shorewood Water Problem
Sent:
Subject:
From: Molly _Siverts@ars.aon.com [mailto: Molly _Siverts@ars.aon.com]
Sent: Monday, October 04,20047:42 PM
To: cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us
Subject: Shorewood Water Problem
Dear Mayor Love and Council Members,
My name is Molly Siverts and I reside at 26030 Shorewood Oaks Drive. My property is on the south side of the
"water problem" in our neighborhood. I know that you all have worked very hard at trying to solve this issue, but it
still continues to present problems for homes in the neighborhood. Our home has not had any flooding and I want
to be considerate and gracious to those who are having issues. My next door neighbor, John Healey, told me that
an asphalt path has been suggested. I want to voice my extreme objection to a six foot wide asphalt slab as a
solution to the water problem. Below are my concerns and suggestions for alternate solution;
. An asphalt path is NOT in keeping with the natural paths to the park that currently exist in Shorewood
Oaks.
. I think it will be an eyesore. I think it will harm the value of the homes on either side of it.
. I think the best solution would be to provide adequate "underground" drainage, as was done when
Shorewood Oaks was first built.
. If there is no possible way to achieve underground drainage then I hope the city can look a more attractive
solution than asphalt.
. There are many alternatives such as stone, patterned cement, brick or other substances that would blend
in with the natural environment of our neighborhood.
I want to thank you for your attention to this matter and I appreciate you taking the time to read my note.
Molly Siverts
Senior Consultant
direct telephone # 952656-8151
direct fax# 952 656-8788
Molly _Siverts@ ars.aon .com
ATTACHMENT 4
Ion /2004